Talk:Searing Flames
__TOC__ Auspicious Incantation -> Arcane Echo -> Searing, Searing, Searing, Searing, Searing... Kessel 05:43, 24 September 2006 (CDT) :I like this combo better: Fire Attunement -> Elemental Attunement -> Searing, Fire Ball, Searing, Fire Ball..... >> Trace 20:13, 24 September 2006 (CDT) ::Yes, because everyone can have 2 elites in their bar. (T/ ) 20:29, 24 September 2006 (CDT) :::Guild Wars strategies give advantages to those with two elites in their bar. It's superior to those with just one. --Mgrinshpon 16:33, 8 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Exactly. Bring and elementalist hero with Elemental Attunement, and Arcane Mimicry him. If he's packing Deep Freeze too, all the better, for avoiding AOE flee somewhat.--GTPoompt 03:55, 15 October 2006 (CDT) :::Yep, this is why with 1 healing as support, Nerashi prevented a wipe in consulate docks, faced with at least 6 archers. Kicked their arses with her godly FOUR elites :P --Gimmethegepgun 07:09, 22 December 2006 (CST) Boss at the north end of Turai's procession has this. Remember when you first got Factions and thought "gee, these elementalist bosses do a lot of damage?" --Fyren 20:35, 27 October 2006 (CDT) :The boss is called Korr, Living Flame. He/she packs a hell of a punch, but I managed to take it down. I got screenshots and stuff, putting the boss page up now. Bubbinska 21:20, 27 October 2006 (CDT) ::I had no trouble at all killing Korr. Korr lasted about 15 seconds before dying, and didn't even take out any of my heroes or henchmen. Isn't it great what Ward Against Harm can do? --Curse You 20:14, 23 November 2006 (CST) I'll ask this here: Can someone confirm that the 2nd note here is CORRECT and the skill description is WRONG? Because they can't both be correct. Second, can someone confirm that if you're Melandru or under frigid armour, this skill does no damage? :I see no reason for the first question, but for the second: Yes, it won't do any damange, because it will try to set you on fire first, and you are under the effect of Avatar of Melandru so you can't get any conditions like burnig. As you see, this skill only does damage if you are are burning --> the skill has no effect on foes immunite to burning. KORMAB does NOT have searing flames. I just wasted time tracking him down only to find he has MINDBURN :He does, but only in Dasha Vestibule (mission). --Curse You 20:37, 23 November 2006 (CST) Kind of off topic but, a good counter to this is the "unpopular touch ranger". My guild ran a gvg, we had 8 touch rangers and the opposing team was using a Searing Flames spamming build and they got toasted (Pun intented). Anything can can either transfer conditions or ignore them can easily beat this skill and most builds that use it. Dr Titan ::LOL 8 touch rangers, that sounds like fun. It'd piss people like me off who want to come up with orignal builds and get pounded by them in HvH (Everyone else can kill touchies with AoE but me, my build... can kill them but not the touchers. GAH!). Nice win, and this skill mostly shines in AB in my opinion, where it can easily cap a shrine solo faster than anything else besides echo-showers. Kamahl the Fist 21:26, 5 December 2006 (CST) Mark of Rodgort -> Incendiary Bonds (cover hex) -> Fireball -> Searing Flames? 238 (plus possible extra 84) spike dmg to everyone wacking on your squishy. If that squishy just happens to be you, use Phoenix instead of Fireball for an additional 95 dmg. Possible total of 417 dmg + burning within 5 secs (after Mark is cast). This leaves room for Flare, Fire Attunement, and a res. This might keep you from getting touched for awhile, if they are still standing. Counters? Light of Deliverance or to a lesser degree, Winter. Queen Schmuck 05:38, 7 December 2006 (CST) I honestly can't see the reason for taking up an Elite with a combo of Mark of Rodgort(limited)/Fireball. My guildies raved about SF so I picked it up and honestly the 2skill combo is more effective, with only a slightly longer cast time but more prolonged burning and less energy cost. Leaves the Elite slot open for something more useful. Morgneto 13.03, 28 May 2007 (NZT) Counter Hmm do we really need a counter section for a single spell? －Sora 02:25, 6 December 2006 (CST) :since the skill is practically a build in itself (at least according to some nukers >_>), i think it's appropriate. plus Frigid armor is quite obviously designed to be a counter to it. Bubbinska 03:28, 6 December 2006 (CST) ::Well but still I think it's a bit over to put a whole counter section here, it's more appropriate to put it in the build that involve Searing Flames. －Sora 06:11, 6 December 2006 (CST) :::A counter list could get reallllllly long, it should be build specific. Not only that, those counters are very general. Like dont bunch up. Duh. Xeon 05:27, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::::You'd be surprised.. xD — Skuld 05:35, 7 December 2006 (CST) :::::Pfft, you cant go around to every single skill and put Counter and then list the same ones, instead maybe there should be a AoE counter guide or something similar. Xeon 05:37, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::::::You've seen the forum whiners. No-one cries about firestorm, they cry at this because they haven't thought round it. No AoE counter guide.. just isn't needed. — Skuld 05:43, 7 December 2006 (CST) :I suggest we remove all counters for this except the ones that make it useless, ie Frigid Armor and Avatar of Melandru. The rest are general counters. Bubbinska 06:44, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::Done. --Ufelder 07:16, 7 December 2006 (CST) :::Nicely done too. Xeon 00:24, 8 December 2006 (CST) ::::avatar of melandrue functions diffrently vs conditions than frigid armour vs burning ::::frigid armour means you are unable to be set on fire, while avatar of melandrue makes you ignore conditions(ignore burning)-avatar of melandrue will ignore any conditions on you already, while frigid armour will "not" cause you to ignore/be cured of burning(if you were already) :::::Spamming SF alone won't do jack vs an avatar of melandru, so whhy'd you remove it from the notes? –Ichigo724 23:49, 16 February 2007 (CST) i though i moved it down-but i like how it was rephrased(wiggles out of explaining the diffrence) Bug? Has anyone else noticed a bug with this spell? Normally, for AoE spells, if the target creature dies mid-cast, the spell finishes casting anyway, affecting whatever is still in the area of effect. This one doesn't seem to do that though, and if whatever I'm casting it on dies, the spell fails. Anyone else run into this? -- [[User:ImbrilShadowfire|'Imbril Shadowfire']] 12:10, 13 December 2006 (CST) It's not exacly AoE. Some spells, like for example, Enfeebling Blood can be cast even when target dies prematurely. Maybe it should be AoE, but it is not. I guess it isn't bug at all - Abedeus :That's exactly what I'm saying. Enfeebling blood, which affects an area, still casts when the target dies. Same with other spells like meteor shower, fire storm, etc. But this one, which clearly affects an area, doesn't finish casting when the target dies. It's possible that that was done intentionally, but I have a very hard time believing that such different behaviour is something they would have meant to do. -- [[User:ImbrilShadowfire|'Imbril Shadowfire']] 11:05, 15 December 2006 (CST) ::Isn't Rodgort's Invocation the same? --Armond Warblade (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2006 (CST) :::Deep Freeze and MS is "at target's location". SF is "Target foes (and nearby foes)".--Silk Weaker 21:16, 15 December 2006 (CST) :::: I guess, the spells that target ,,foes and nearby'' can be cast, because of that ,,nearby''. So it's not a bug, I guess - Abedeus 15:07, 16 December 2006 (CST) :::::Compare it to Rodgort's Invocation if you want to know whether it is a bug. I think it is, as I'm pretty sure Rodgorts Invocation casts even if the target dies. Mask Of Insanity 09:36, 17 December 2006 (CST) ::::::Exactly. Rodgort's casts, and anything else I've tried seems to as well. Except this. -- [[User:ImbrilShadowfire|'Imbril Shadowfire']] 18:13, 17 December 2006 (CST) :::::::The best reason I can think of of this not going off with premature death is because its effect is based off the initial target's state of burning. If he's dead, you can't check if he's on fire or not, so the skill doesn't know what to do. --Arkhar 21:58, 13 January 2007 (MST) ::::::::No, I'm pretty sure the reason is that it has to be targeting someone (i.e. Target foe and all nearby foes...), whereas MS or Fire Storm targets a general area on the map (i.e. Adjacent to target foe's location). :::::::::I believe rodgort's invoc keeps on casting even though it says "target foe and..." –Ichigo724 20:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT) ::::::::::Well then, the only other one that seems to be likely is what Arkhar said 3 comments up. LavaEdge324++ 10:02, 15 April 2007 (CDT) :::::::::::Your'e right, it is that it's target foe and all nearby foe, instead of nearby to target foes location. Part of the reason for this difference is that it is a single damage and not projectile based, as opposed to fire storm or fireball. DrJeff 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC) What happened to the skill icon? :Looks fine to me. --Ufelder 01:02, 24 December 2006 (CST) ::Icon has never been changed Xeon 01:04, 24 December 2006 (CST) Nerf On the Way In a recent Gaile chat, she all but confirmed this skill is gonna be changed soon. Someone asked her about it, and her response was along the lines of "Oh yes, I'm fairly certain SF is going to get ner...changed very soon". The chat log is on GWOnline somewhere, one of the chats right before the festival began. Not that it wasn't easy to see coming, but enjoy the skill while you can folks, it's likely gonna be hit before too long. DKS01 07:00, 25 December 2006 (CST) :If they think they can nerf my ele they'll get themselves nerfed. --Armond Warblade (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2006 (CST) :it is really ridiculous when you think about it....all 3 instruction booklets refer to the elem as the class that can deal the highest damage...then elems finally get a little bit of power back from the earlier aoe nerf, now they are gonna nerf it again? i dont even play an elem, but i am pissed off...they should just describe elems as "support chars" ::Anet want to balance the skills out more so other elites get used as well, currently SF does more damage over time (or at least think it does) then other elites, which is why more people use it. Yes, they need to be given some power back but they need to be given it back fairly and even. -- Xeon 02:07, 28 December 2006 (CST) :::tis I from the post you responded to Xeon...sorry, i am still a noob at posting on wiki...i hear what you are saying...and as i said, i dont even play one..but i hear it all the time from friends that do, that anet seems to LOVE neutering elems... :::i understand that skills should be balanced, but it seems anet wants to nerf ANY elem skill/ability that affects PvP...for me, i am strictly PVE necro, and it took anet more than a year and two campaigns to nerf SS....and it still owns all if you know how to use it, so necros arent really in the forefront of Anets conscious (not in pve anyway).... :::but elems seem to be destined for support roles, as GREATLY opposed to their description.... :::maybe i dont know enough about PvP to argue...but even when i observe high rank Pvp, unless it is a spike team, elems are almost always ether prodigy heal party spammers ::::When was the last time you went to HA? - Fred The Second 05:14, 28 December 2006 (CST) :::::recently....and when i do, i NEVER fear an elem....this should NOT be true of - as the instruction booklets describe them - the highest damage dealers in the game 61.180.231.2 05:18, 28 December 2006 (CST) ::::::GW uses PvP and PvE, it is unfortunate but anet have to work to balance the skills for pvp and pve, i just did a recent fix up of all the skill articles in the wiki and i congratulate anet designers in staying sane so far. The mass amount of skills they are implementing and going to implement in further chapters is going to be an excessive amount of work and i think anet know this. The main way eles were nerfed was the AI AoE triggers, as far i can see the bigger the exploit the more people complain. The simple fact is, if it is not fair, it needs to be downgraded. Elementalist are especially noticeable when it comes to downgrades because they use AoE and heavy damage in the one go, which is extremely temperamental with balancing issues. Btw you can sign your comments in talk pages with ~~~~ -- Xeon 05:26, 28 December 2006 (CST) :::::::Warriors have the highest DPS, the manual for gw was made by monkeys, especially the original and factions, those two were inconsistent and littered with errors. -- Xeon 05:33, 28 December 2006 (CST) ::::::::haha...yes i agree with your points...i really want balance...but i think it is too easy to just state that the manuals for gw were "made by monkeys"...cuz many people will read the online game manuals, and base their decision whether or not to buy the game on that...like i said, i know alot of elem friends that are VERY disapointed with the fact that they expected theirs chars to be able to cause REAL damage on a regular basis, and they are disappointed that Wars BY FAR do more DPS than they do, while at the same time maintaining higher armor class... 61.180.231.2 07:55, 28 December 2006 (CST) ::::::::it seems to me, and others, that the changes ANet makes to the elem class are effectively limiting elem to nothing more than a support role61.180.231.2 07:58, 28 December 2006 (CST) :The manuals were flashy, thats what drove people if they based their decision on the manuals, i chose GW because my friend played it and i purchased it to see if it was any good and i loved it. By stating it was made by monkeys, i really ment they must of put minimal effort into the quality of content, the amount of spelling mistakes & game play mistakes was just silly. Anyway enough about the manual back to the nerfing of Searing Flames & co. I think you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of warr's v ele's. Remember a warrior can easily be disabled through blinding and weakness, while it will take quite a bit more to shutdown a ele. Using a lame example, if you run Blinding Flash in RA, pretty much any warr you come across will be shutdown indefinable. I took this one time in for fun and came across two melee classes, they could not do anything for the entire match, the rest of my team pounded the other two and the melee were left in the brink. This is a total different case in HA, GvG and so forth though. ::My elementalist has suicided now 82.17.103.240 15:04, 5 February 2007 (CST) :Another way to look at it is, ele's will do AoE damage, warrs will not, a warr will do more DPS to a single target and an ele will do more DPS in a group situation, So the argument about warr's having more DPS has been manipulated over time. Ele's will never lose their place in a PvE group, other classes have only so much AoE damage and the ones that do have AoE are extremely limited, for instance. Spiteful Spirit, massive damage but you really can only have one SS player on your team otherwise you effectively lose a player because there is only so much ss love you can spread around and one person is enough to do that. Hundred Blades, Cyclone Axe, Triple Chop, Sand Shards, Mark of Pain. These are all sustainable AoE attacks, but do you see 6 warrs run in with hundred blades with 2 monk supports, could you image the pressure on the monks trying to heal these 6 people that are getting spiked and pummeled by AoE damage. The only other obvious mainstream alternative i see to an ele in PvE, is a Barrage group, im happy with them having just one skill that allows them to do this. Otherwise its just another ele class really. :I would not mind seeing Searing Flames downgraded mainly so other alternative skills can start to flourish, I would like to see GW with a range of skills that are acceptable in mainstream PvE. I can remember in prophecies, the only worthy build to run was Arcane Echo Meteor Shower with energy management. Elementalist in PvE has come along way since then. The elementalist character will never die, it will sink but never be removed from mainstream PvE. -- Xeon 09:01, 28 December 2006 (CST) ::Just downgrade the burning duration to 1...3 the same as Immolate. That means that it won't be quite so overpowered, but it won't be nerfed to hell like most Elem skills. Cynical 07:18, 6 January 2007 (CST) ::That WILL nerf it to hell, because then you would be REQUIRED to have 12 or more fire in order to possibly deal damage with it, because with 2 second cd and 1 second cast, they would not be on fire any more if it was 1...3 burning time. :::Some suggestions and discussion here http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10096852 — Skuld 12:11, 7 January 2007 (CST) If you're all going to complain about elementalists being weak, don't argue against a SF nerf, argue in favour of a buff for every other elementalist elite. I agree that elementalists are fallign behind a bit, but having only one skill to bring them up to par doesn't make sense. I'm up for a nerf if it will bring more variety back to PvP. -- [[User:SavageX378|''SavageX]] 02:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ::I wouldn't consider it a buff... Wasn't the burn duration like that before the nerfs? (this is LavaEdge324) :::Yes, it's been denerfed. --68.112.142.241 06:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!!! --190.80.205.126 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think this is part of A-Nets solution to counter spiritway now that spirits can burn. --Rururrur 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC) :Using Searing Flames to counter shitway. Great idea anet. Now why don't you just give all bspike skills a 1s recharge so we can take spirits down with OG too? -Auron 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC) :: I like the change. SF was overnerfed (first the burn duration and then the damage). Now it's balanced. —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Powercozmic ( ) }. :::OH MY DWAYNA WHY!?! SF was already very powerful, now they revert back to pre-nerf?! (well, halfway) 69.21.137.34 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I think it's a balanced denerf. If it needs to be nerfed again, why not make the buring last for 1...6 IF it needs to be. If not, I'm happy with it. Sure my SF ele always bring another SF hero but for my other characters, one SF should be alright. Renin 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Its better to bring some energy management skills to deal with the high energy cost Better to what? I prefer my change, Its best.... Lost-Blue 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) :Aye, I agree. I've also chucked in an apostrophe in 'its' =P Bigrat2 Talk 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC) ::You're both wrong. Renin 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::: Then please master of grammar, bring some construcive criticism to the table. Lost-Blue 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Mark of Rodgort I'm having serious doubts about bring Mark of Rodgort. The first time you cast SF you trigger burning, whether Mark is already on targets or not. Mark-SF-SF-SF-SF will cause burning for 12 seconds and SF damage 3 times, whereas SF-SF-SF-SF-SF will likewise cause burning for 12 seconds and SF damage 3 times (the 1st and 4th SF cause burning). Against foes determined not to die, brining Mark will allow and extra SF damage, but that's at best every 20 seconds or so. I guess, however, that Mark provides stability of burning making sure that Glowing Gaze returns energy. Oye 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) :If your SF deals damage, it doesn't reapply Burning. With MoR, it does reapply Burning when it does damage. But my suggestin is bringing neither. Dual Attunement RI spam owns this, cause it doesnt need to use GoLE and Burning Gaze for energy (and even with those two, there are periods of not spamming SF O_o ). --- -- (s)talkpage 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ::Casting SF-SF-SF-SF-SF-SF-SF-SF should kill a normal foe and results in Burning-Damage-Damage-Burning-Damage-Damage-Burning-Damage, effectively losing 1/3 of the skill to Burning. Using MoR, you get Nothing-Burning-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage, for one more casting worth of Damage, a couple seconds extra burning, at a cost of 2 second ramping up delay. SF does a little better when there's another SF nuker. ::RI has twice the cycle time of SF, does a little less damage overall per cast (more direct, less burning) but costs next to nothing with Ele Attunement. That looks to me like 2/3 the damage over time for little energy loss. Bring Fire Ball and Phoenix and MoR (4 skills) and I guess you do a little better than SF (3 skills), but you gain a lot if you cast Earth or other skills. ::But Wait!! The SF nuker can bring Arcane Mimickry and steal Ele Attunement from the RI nuker, then Arcane Echo-SF and blaze away. Oye 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) SF build for hero WHat is the best Sf build for heroes?--Balistic Pve 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :Honestly, the standard bar for humans is the same for heros. Except don't give heros meteor shower, they suck at using it. But tbh like viper said above, Dual-Attune Rodgort's Invocation spam > this. --Shadowcrest 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::Try giving them Leech Signet and Power Drain. Heroes are godly at interrupting, so your SF nukers can fulfill interruption and energy management at the same time. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'''Scottie_theNerd]] (argue) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Self-Synergy How many skills in the game have great synergy with itself? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC) :Awaken the Blood. 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) ::Don't forget Air/Earth/Fire/Water Attunement :) --GW-Seventh 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC) SF + MoR Is bad synergy man. There are two ways to run Searing Flames man. Either you take 6 or 7 copies of it in which case everything will blow up instantly making your 15 recharge MoR pretty useless, not to mention the wasted energy and time man. It doesn't even trigger on the first cast and you have seven seconds before you need to reapply burning man, or you are taking one copy of searing flames to spread burning for damage reduction using They're on Fire and then it seems pretty stupid to be using MoR to do the same thing man. Why suggest terrible combinations man? If you are going to suggest that you might as well suggest Glyph of Immolation man, at least that triggers the damage on the first cast man. No distinguishing features 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :Burning - Damage - Damage - Burning - Damage - Damage - etc. or MoR - Burning - Damage - etc. It's a good trick for PvE (ignoring the fact SF is not good in PvE in general). Also, Immol is single target. --- -- ( ) (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::If your target isn't dead by then you are doing SF spike/PvE wrong man. No distinguishing features 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::Ever PvE'd? No? Thought so. There are monsters that have insane defense against Fire damage (anything in HM, areas with a lot of Warriors, some Elementals..). People are stupid enough to still bring SF, though. --- -- ( ) (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Exactly man, you call it a good PvE combination, but it's only good in low-mid normal mode where things will die in less than 7 seconds to SF man. No distinguishing features 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::::My point was that one cast of MoR can make you spam the (better) damage part over and over again, without having to waste 15 energy every 2 casts to apply the burning again (only once on MoR). I might not PvP a lot, but there are targets that are pretty well protected or have sufficient self-heal (or a good Monk) that makes them survive 2 casts-cycles of SF = about 15 seconds = MoR recharge time.-- [[User:El_Nazgir|'El_Nazgir']] 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::7 seconds is 4 casts of Searing Flames man and if someone survives that long in PvP it means they are protted and you should switch targets man. No distinguishing features 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :::::::MoR is begging for a cover hex. Alternatively, the only time it's useful to take MoR is if you're a solo SF ele, and that is terrible/inferior nearly everywhere in the game because SF only works well with 9001 copies of it. If one is taking a single SF for "ToF!", then taking MoR may be slightly useful. But it's really nothing fantastic. (T/ ) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::(edit conflict) 7 seconds is 2 casts of SF, or you're depending on mods to kick in (bad idea imo): 2 recharge, 1 cast time. First cast applies 7 secs of burning, 2 sec recharge +1 sec cast =4 seconds left after first damage. next cast at 1 second of burning left (4 secs -2 recharge -1 cast time). At 16 fire magic, this deals 310 damage over 8 seconds (including the first cast's cast time) to a 60 AL target in total (so about 39 dps). This is ofcourse if you're the only SF caster. ::::::::But even if you had 4 casts (about 510 damage), you still have enough room to heal a couple of times. heck, even a war with lions comfort could heal about 250 in that time. The only profession that might have problems with that is the Ranger, but they take loads less elemental damage anyway so it doesn't matter. ::::::::And another thing, MoR guarantees the burning can't be removed on the way. But yeah, it's still vulnerable to hex removal ofcourse. But then again, mass hex removal is rare, and the recharge of hex removal usually is pretty high compared to condition removal.-- [[User:El_Nazgir|'El_Nazgir']] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I don't care if you are talking about PvE or PvP man, if you are solo spamming SF on one target with no damage support from anyone else, you are doing it wrong man. No distinguishing features 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Mark of Rodgort (2) Unless someone has some good arguments as to why Mark of Rodgort has such a good synergy with Searing Flames I am going to remove the remark. Searing Flames does fire damage against burning foes, or sets foes that are not burning on fire. The damage from the burning caused by Searing Flames is about the same as it's fire-damage, so there is no advantage in bringing Mark of Rodgort. Amy Awien 08:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :Look anywhere on this talk page. It's been discussed half a dozen times :) --Vipermagi 11:32, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I looked and read - as you might have assumed from the fact that I actually post here before simply removing the note - and nobody seemed to have looked at the actual effect of the burning and basically just assumed that 7 seconds of burning can be ignored. I repeat, the burning does as much damage as the damage when this skill hits foes already burning, making Mark of Rodgort fairly pointless in combination with this skill. Amy Awien 12:08, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::The only damage Mark of Rodgort could add to this skill is about 2-3 seconds burning in the time between the end of SF's burning and it being reapplied. Amy Awien 12:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::That's not the point at all. It's not about damage, or the burning effect. It's about mechanics. :::When SF hits a burning foe, the foe is not re-ignited. This means the Burning effect will stop after two casts or so -> One in three casts deal no direct damage. :::A Marked foe, however, has Burning reapplied every time SF deals damage -> unless you suck, the Burning effect will stick until its dead. --Vipermagi 12:22, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::Like Viper said, this argument has been made before, and he just did it, but I can't help trying to put it another way. SF's burning last 6 seconds @12 Fire, so every 3rd cast will be used to renew the burning effect instead of dealing damage. ::::*SF alone: Burn-Damage-Damage-Burn-Damage-Damage-Burn-Damage-Damage-Burn ::::Over 10 casts of SF, you will only deal damage 6 times. ::::*SF+MoR: Burn-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage-Damage ::::MoR lasts 30 seconds and applies 3 seconds of burning @12 Fire. Out of 10 casts of SF on a Marked foe, you deal damage 9 times, only having to apply burning once. THAT is why SF synergizes well with MoR, so you don't waste every 3rd cast of SF. —Dr Ishmael 13:15, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::(after edit conflict)Ah yes, I forgot that kiting sucks for ele's and spamming on recharge is the key to success. ::::The burning eats away HP too, the way it's written it sounds like there's no effect unless the foes are burning, MoR is not needed to renew the burning, and it doesn't really matter if you're alone or not, it just adds a second or two of burning and the damage on the fourth cast of SF. The downside is that you must cast SF on recharge or you'll loose the burning. But that isn't the topic of the article. Amy Awien 14:00, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::If you're not spamming SF on recharge, then you're missing the entire point of the skill. —Dr Ishmael 14:02, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I see where he's coming from. If you don't use MoR, you get 7 seconds of burning, which is a lot. If you do, then you'll only get 3 seconds, which, while maintainable, means there is absolutely no leeway when it comes to recasting. You must spamspamspam without anything going wrong (yea rite) or else you'll lose the benefit of using MoR in the first place. And to be fair, with enough eles, the difference is minimal. It only takes 1 ele to start the burning, after which the other eles can do their thing, and you get to save a skill slot. --Macros 17:32, July 25, 2010 (UTC)